Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!cbnews!rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu
From: rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu (Roger Levasseur)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Message-ID: <5435@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 Apr 89 01:29:47 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 67
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu (Roger Levasseur)




>1) yes, fission plants will probably be more weight and size efficient
>      ; that's why I recommended them for cruisers and carriers ; you
>      only want the fusion plant because it eliminates the need to
>      depend upon potentially difficult to supply enriched uranium and
>      oil ; if you only have a few large surface ships using fission
>      power, you have no uranium supply problem.....so stick with
>      fission for CVNs and CGNs.  Fusion is the obvious choice for the
>     more numerous classes of surface ships (DDs/FFs), though.

The Navy would love to power its DDs/FFs with nuclear power TODAY, but
they are having problems manning nuclear powered ships as it is with
the expertise that is necessary. They don't want to add to the problem.
A nuclear powered escort complements the CVNs and CGNs and frees them
from the logistics of tankering large amounts of fuel oil (or diesel)
for these ships.

>    The whole point is that you have a slightly higher initial outlay,
>      but then don't have the logistics difficulties of supplying
>      large amounts of fossil fuels.  We probably would have seen
>      destroyer's with fission power plants years ago in spite of the

We have. The USS Bainbridge (CGN 25) was originally classified as a
guided missle frigate (DLGN 25).  It was commissioned October 6, 1962.
It was the Navy's third nuclear powered surface ship.  The California
class of cruisers were also originally classified as DLGN.

>      higher initial cost if supplying that much more enriched uranium
>      for naval power plants hadn't seemed to be such a problem.
>      Basically, it's a case of the Navy having to look at it's
>      uranium needs and assigning some sort of priority.  SSNs, CVNs,
>      and CGNs were judged to have greater importance (in that order).

Here is an additional tidbit:  In 1971, the USS Enterprise was refueled.
It was not refueled until the early 80's. I don't know which year.
For all the miles it steamed, it cost about $133 per mile.  A conventional
carrier burns $250 of oil per mile (a 1980 figure), not including the
tankering costs to deliver it.



I also don't think there is a uranium supply problem; the uranium
mining industry is suffering from a lack of demand.  They were
ready to supply the needs of the electric utilities nuclear plants.
But this aspect of the issue isn't sci.military material.
The modern reactors in use also only need to be refueled every
10 to 13 years.  (Some of the older SSNs/SSBNs have been retired
from service early than refuel them for 2 or 3 more years service;
others have stayed in service longer than planned since they had
a few more years life in the fuel core.)

  -roger





-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Roger Levasseur
University of Lowell
rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu